Methods and systems for routing mobile vehicles

ABSTRACT

The present invention relates to methods and systems for routing mobile vehicles under maintenance and operational constraints. In the case of aircraft, the methods and systems may generate an aircraft routing proposal based on information describing a possible flight of an aircraft, determine a proposed flight assignment for the aircraft based on the generated aircraft routing proposal and complying with the information describing the possible flight of the aircraft, and determine whether the proposed flight assignment meets a decision criterion describing requirements for aircraft routing. If the decision criterion is unmet, the methods and systems may optimize the proposed flight assignment such that the proposed flight assignment meets the decision criterion. The methods and systems may also generate a flight assignment plan using the proposed flight assignment that meets the decision criterion.

FIELD OF THE INVENTION

The present invention relates to methods and systems for routing mobilevehicles under maintenance and operational constraints.

BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION

Traditionally, most airline carriers manually assign routes to aircraft.This usually involves having experts allocate all candidate flightsegments to specific aircraft tail numbers (unique sequence ofalphanumeric characteristics used to identify a specific aircraft)within a given sub-fleet of the airline. In addition to any requirementsof the flight segments, the experts must ensure the allocations meet theoperational and maintenance requirements of the aircraft. Consideringthat some carriers may have hundreds of aircraft and thousands offlights scheduled over a given time period (e.g., a month), this can bea complex and cumbersome process. This problem is not necessarily uniqueto the airline industry, it applies to carriers of other modes oftransportation.

Further, during the normal operations of a carrier, situations may oftendevelop wherein modifications have to be made to the existing scheduleplan. For example, an aircraft may unexpectedly be grounded, thusleaving all flights that were assigned to the aircraft's route withoutan aircraft. Since most carriers would not willingly give up therevenues generated by the flights, experts must re-allocate and shiftresources in order to accommodate the orphaned flights. If this happensonly on rare occasions, then the traditional manual approach might beacceptable.

In other instances, however, airlines may find it necessary to adjusttheir flight schedules on a regular basis. For example, passenger demandmay require daily adjustments to flight schedules because the demandinherently varies over the course of the week. Manually re-planning theassignments of the aircraft and flights to accommodate these adjustmentsmay be inefficient. Further, given the necessity to produce a planwithin short time constraints, a generated plan may not be fullycalculated to maximize revenues for the airline.

Therefore, it would be beneficial to develop efficient solutionprocedures that can determine feasible aircraft routings over a giventime period while considering all operational and maintenanceconstraints. These procedures could be used to make the initial aircraftrouting and/or update the routing as necessary.

SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION

Systems and methods consistent with the present invention determinefeasible routings of mobile vehicles over a given time period takinginto consideration all prescribed maintenance and operationalconstraints.

One exemplary aspect of the present invention may include a method forrouting aircraft. The method may comprise generating an aircraft routingproposal based on information describing a possible flight of anaircraft, determining a proposed flight assignment for the aircraftbased on the generated aircraft routing proposal and complying with theinformation describing the possible flight of the aircraft, anddetermining whether the proposed flight assignment meets a decisioncriterion describing requirements for aircraft routing. If the decisioncriterion is unmet, the method may further include optimizing theproposed flight assignment such that the proposed flight assignmentmeets the decision criterion. The method may also include generating aflight assignment plan using the proposed flight assignment that meetsthe decision criterion.

A second exemplary aspect of the present invention may include anaircraft routing system. The system may include means for generating anaircraft routing proposal based on information describing a possibleflight of an aircraft, means for determining a proposed flightassignment for the aircraft based on the generated aircraft routingproposal and complying with the information describing the possibleflight of the aircraft, means for determining whether the proposedflight assignment meets a decision criterion describing requirements foraircraft routing, means for optimizing the proposed flight assignmentsuch that the proposed flight assignment meets the decision criterion ifthe decision criterion is unmet, and means for generating a flightassignment plan using the proposed flight assignment that meets thedecision criterion.

A third exemplary aspect of the present invention may include a methodfor generating an aircraft routing proposal. The method may includereceiving information describing a possible flight of an aircraft,generating a flight network from the received information, modeling atleast one of the maintenance and operational constraints, anddetermining an aircraft routing proposal for the aircraft that satisfiesthe received information. The received information may includemaintenance and operational constraints.

A fourth exemplary aspect of the present invention may include a systemfor generating an aircraft routing proposal. The system may includemeans for receiving information describing a possible flight of anaircraft, means for generating a flight network from the receivedinformation, means for modeling at least one of the maintenance andoperational constraints, and means for determining an aircraft routingproposal for the aircraft that satisfies the received information. Thereceived information may include maintenance and operationalconstraints.

A fifth exemplary aspect of the present invention may include a mobilevehicle routing method. The method may comprise generating a vehiclerouting proposal based on information describing a possible arc of avehicle, determining a proposed arc assignment for the vehicle based onthe generated vehicle routing proposal and complying with theinformation describing the possible arc of the vehicle, determiningwhether the proposed arc assignment meets a decision criteriondescribing requirements for vehicle routing, optimizing the proposed arcassignment to meet the decision criterion if the decision criterion isunmet, and generating an arc assignment plan using the proposed arcassignment that meets the decision criterion.

Additional aspects of the invention are set forth in the descriptionwhich follows, and in part are obvious from the description, or may belearned by practice of methods, systems, and articles of manufacturerconsistent with features of the present invention. It is understood thatboth the foregoing general description and the following detaileddescription are exemplary and explanatory only and are not restrictiveof the invention as claimed.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

The accompanying drawings, which are incorporated in and constitute apart of this specification, illustrate several aspects of the inventionand together with the description, serve to explain the principles ofthe invention. In the drawings,

FIG. 1 illustrates an exemplary system, consistent with the presentinvention, for determining aircraft routings;

FIG. 2 illustrates a flowchart of an exemplary method, consistent withthe present invention, for determining aircraft routings;

FIG. 3 illustrates an exemplary flight network consistent with thepresent invention; and

FIG. 4 illustrates an exemplary flowchart of another exemplary method,consistent with the present invention, for determining aircraftroutings.

DESCRIPTION OF THE EMBODIMENTS

Systems and methods consistent with the present invention determinefeasible aircraft routings that satisfy all prescribed maintenance andoperational constraints. Such systems and networks can be used to assignall scheduled flights within a given time horizon based on the availableaircraft. They may also bridge the gap between strategic planning andoperations control (i.e., tactical aircraft routing) by automating thetask of implementing the strategic plan during operations control.Further, in performing these functions, systems and methods consistentwith the present invention are flexible and may relax violatedoperational constraints in order to determine feasible tail assignments.Additionally, they may use a defined prioritization scheme to find afeasible solution, if all prescribed operation constraints cannot besatisfied.

Reference is now made in detail to exemplary embodiments of theinvention, examples of which are illustrated in the accompanyingdrawings. Wherever possible, the same reference numbers are usedthroughout the drawings to refer to the same or like parts.

FIG. 1 illustrates an exemplary system 100 for aircraft routing in whichfeatures and principles of the present invention may be implemented. Theaircraft routing system 100 includes a flight management/operationssystem 102, an optimization processor 106, a network 108 connecting theflight management/operations system 102 and the optimization processor106, a flight assignment plan database 110, and a flight informationdisplay system 112. The processor 106 is coupled to the flightassignment plan database 108. The flight assignment plan database 108 iscoupled to a flight information display system 112. While FIG. 1 showsonly one computer system 102 providing information to the aircraftrouting system 100, the system 100 may receive information from anynumber of sources (e.g., additional computer systems, reports, etc.).

The flight management/operations system 102 may contain aircraftinformation, flight information, maintenance information, and passengerinformation to be used in determining a flight assignment plan. Forinstance, the flight management/operations system 102 may be the SabreAirOps, Sabre Flight Operating System, or similar system used byairlines for monitoring and scheduling daily maintenance and flightoperations and tracking aircraft position. The flight information mayinclude information describing the scheduled flight, such as flightorigin, destination, start time, end time, block time (i.e., length offlying time for flight), booked passenger loads, passenger revenue/fare,assigned aircraft family type, assigned crew rating, minimum equipmentlist (MEL) restrictions, operating restrictions, aircraft information,maintenance information, and/or other information associated with theflight. The MEL restrictions may further include auxiliary power unit(APU), extended-range twin-engine operations (ETOPS), traffic alert andcollision avoidance system (TCAS), and/or other equipment restrictions.The operating restrictions may further include flight range, noiserating of aircraft assigned to the flight, whether the flight will beover water, and/or other restrictions that may affect the desired flightroute.

The aircraft information may include tail identification, hourlyoperating cost, current location, ready time, remaining flight time,passenger capacity, aircraft family type, crew rating, MEL capability,and/or other information associated with the aircraft. The maintenanceinformation may include aircraft tail, type of maintenance check,scheduled location, start time, end time, and/or other informationrequired to properly route aircraft for maintenance.

The network 108 may include a public network such as the Internet or atelephony network, a private network, a virtual private network, or anyother mechanism for enabling communication between two or more nodes orlocations. The network 108 may include one or more of wired and wirelessconnections. Wireless communications may include radio transmission viathe airwaves, however, those of ordinary skill in the art willappreciate that various other communication techniques can be used toprovide wireless transmission including infrared line of sight,cellular, microwave, satellite, Bluetooth packet radio and spreadspectrum radio. Wireless data may include, but is not limited to,paging, text messaging, e-mail, Internet access and other specializeddata applications specifically excluding, or including voicetransmission.

In some instances consistent with the invention, the network 108 mayinclude a courier network (e.g. postal service, United Parcel Service,Federal Express, etc.). Other types of networks that are to beconsidered within the scope of the invention include local areanetworks, metropolitan area networks, wide area networks, ad hocnetworks, and/or any mechanism for facilitating communication betweentwo nodes or remote locations.

The flight assignment plan database 110 may be used to store a flightassignment plan generated by the optimization processor 106 as describedlater herein. The database 110 may include storage media, such asmagnetic storage devices, optical storage devices, organic storagedevices, random access memory, printed media, and/or any other mediumfor storing information.

The flight information display system 112 may be used to access thestored flight assignment plan in the database 110. The flightinformation display system 112 may be part of a Sabre airport productsuite or any information system used to communicate the most currentflight schedule within the airline and at various airport stations inthe airline network.

The optimization processor 106 may be configured to implement theexemplary aircraft routing method illustrated in flowchart 200 of FIG.2. Processor 106 may be implemented using any type of computerprocessor, such as a personal computer, workstation, mainframe,application specific integrated circuit, etc. As shown in FIG. 2, theprocessor 106 may receive information (flight, aircraft, maintenance,and/or passenger information) from the flight management/operationssystem 102 via network 108 (step 202). The processor 106 may generate anaircraft routing proposal that satisfies the received information andany constraints contained therein (step 204). In general the routingproposal may describe possible sequences of flights and non-flightevents for a given aircraft. To generate the aircraft routing proposal,the processor 106 may organize the received information into a flightnetwork for each aircraft.

For example, as described above the received information may containflight origin, destination, start time, end time, etc. The processor 106may organize a flight network by creating data structures in its memory.The data structures may contain, inter alia, location (e.g., airport inChicago) and time information. The data structures may also containpointers pointing to other data structures containing different locationand/or time information. From the data structures and pointers a map ofall flights in an airline schedule may be represented in memory or otherstorage media.

FIG. 3 illustrates an exemplary flight network 300. The flight network300 represents an airline schedule for a particular aircraft and isdrawn using vertical timelines. Any such flight network 300 for aparticular plane shows all possible flights for that plane meetingmaintenance and operational criteria in the received information. Thevertical timelines are located over a horizontal space representinggiven stations, such as airports “A”, “B”, “C”, and “D” 301. Each event(e.g., an arrival or departure) at a given station is represented by anode 302 for a specific time and location coordinate. Flights arerepresented by “flight arcs” 304 which connect event nodes 302 at theorigin and destination of the flights. “Ground arcs” 306 in the flightnetwork 300 connect chronologically successive pairs of the nodes 302 ata given station. These arcs are necessary in order to describe the flowof aircraft through the flight network 300 and for the application ofnetwork flow algorithms, such as shortest-path algorithms. Although theabove example makes reference to flight arcs and ground arcs, othertypes of arcs (etc., water, space, etc.) may also be include.

For example, flight arc 308 from node 310 to node 312 represents aflight in the airline schedule departing from airport “B” and arrivingat airport “D”. If the aircraft is assigned the route conveyingtravelers along the flight arc 308, the network 300 shows the aircraftmay also stay at airport “D” for maintenance or refueling during groundarc 314, and then convey travelers along flight arc 316.

Processor 106 may model all maintenance and operational constraints asreflected in the received information in each individual aircraft'sflight network thereby enabling tail specific constraints to beconsidered during the allocation process. The processor 106 may treateach flight network as a sub-problem to be solved as part of aDantzig-Wolfe decomposition (i.e., a column generation algorithm).

The Dantzig-Wolfe decomposition is described by George B. Dantzig andPhilip Wolfe in “Decomposition Principle for Linear Programs”, RandCorporation, Santa Monica, Calif., Nov. 24, 1959, pp. 101-111 and in“Econometrics”, Vol. 29, No. 4, October 1961, pp. 767-778; StephenBradley, Amoldo Hax, and Thomas Magnanti in “Applied MathematicalProgramming”, Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Reading, Mass., 1977,pp. 540-545; and Ravindra Ahuja, Thomas Magnanti, and James Orlin in“Network Flows: Theory, Algorithms, and Applications”, Prentice-Hall,Inc., Englewood Cliffs, N.J., 1993, pp. 671-673, all of which areincorporated herein by reference in their entirety.

For example, the flight network 300 of each aircraft may be organized torepresent an exemplary sub-problem with Equations SP1 and CSP1 to CSP9shown below, wherein the variables are defined in Table 1.

$\begin{matrix}{{{{Minimize}{\sum\limits_{f \in F}{\left\{ {{AOC}_{af} - {flightdual}_{f}} \right\} \times {Assign}_{af}}}} - {{aircraftdual}_{a}{\forall{a \in A}}}}{{Subject}\mspace{14mu} {to}\text{:}}{{{\sum\limits_{f \in {F{({{s|{i\; n}},t})}}}{Assign}_{af}} - {\sum\limits_{f \in {F{({{s|{out}},t})}}}{Assign}_{af}} + {\sum\limits_{\underset{{MA}{({{s|t} = {start}})}}{m \in}}{Main\_ A}_{ast}} - {\sum\limits_{\underset{{MA}{({{s|t} = {end}})}}{m \in}}{Main\_ A}_{ast}} + {\sum\limits_{\underset{{MB}{({{s|t} = {start}})}}{m \in}}{Main\_ B}_{ast}} - {\sum\limits_{\underset{{MB}{({{s|t} = {end}})}}{m \in}}{Main\_ B}_{ast}} + \gamma_{{ast} - 1} - \gamma_{ast} + {Aircin}_{ast}} = 0}} & ({SP1}) \\{{{\forall{a \in A}},{s \in S},{t \in {T(s)}}}{{Assign}_{af} \leq \left\{ \begin{matrix}{{{{1\mspace{14mu} {if}\mspace{14mu} {range}_{a}} \geq {SL}_{f}},}} & {{{{apu}_{a} \geq {apu}_{f}},{{noise}_{a} \geq {noise}_{f}}}} \\{{{{etops}_{a} \geq {etops}_{f}},}} & {{{{H\; 2O_{a}} \geq {H\; 2O_{f}}},{{tcas}_{a} \geq {tcas}_{f}}}} \\{0} & {{otherwise}}\end{matrix} \right.}} & ({CSP1}) \\{{{\forall{a \in A}},{f \in F}}{{{swap\_ within}{\_ type} \times {Assign}_{af}} \leq \left\{ \begin{matrix}1 & {{{{if}\mspace{14mu} {type}_{a}} = {ac\_ type}_{f}}} \\0 & {{otherwise}}\end{matrix} \right.}} & ({CSP2}) \\{{{\forall{a \in A}},{f \in F}}{{{swap\_ within}{\_ crew} \times {Assign}_{af}} \leq \left\{ \begin{matrix}1 & {{{{if}\mspace{11mu} {crew}\; {type}_{a}} = {crewtype}_{f}}} \\0 & {{otherwise}}\end{matrix} \right.}} & ({CSP3}) \\{{{\forall{a \in A}},{f \in F}}{{{swap\_ within}{\_ family} \times {Assign}_{af}} \leq \left\{ \begin{matrix}1 & {{{{if}\mspace{14mu} {family}_{a}} = {ac\_ family}_{f}}} \\0 & {{otherwise}}\end{matrix} \right.}} & ({CSP4}) \\{{{\forall{a \in A}},{f \in F}}{{\sum\limits_{{{f \in F}|{{dt} > {t\; 1}}},{{at} < {t\; 2}}}{{BlockTime}_{f} \times {Assign}_{af}}} \leq \left\{ \begin{matrix}{{FlyingTime}_{a}} & {{{{if}\mspace{14mu} t\; 1} = {CT}_{a}}} \\{{MaintenanceInterval}} & {{otherwise}}\end{matrix} \right.}} & ({CSP5}) \\{{{\forall{a \in A}},{{t\; 1} \in {T(a)}},{\left. {{t\; 2} \in {T(a)}} \middle| {{Fly\_ A}{{\_ Check}\left\lbrack {a,{t\; 1},{t\; 2}} \right\rbrack}} \right. = 1}}{{\sum\limits_{{{f \in F}|{{dt} > {t\; 1}}},{{at} < {t\; 2}}}{Assign}_{af}} \leq \left\{ \begin{matrix}{{FlyingCycles}_{a}} & {{{{if}\mspace{14mu} t\; 1} = {CT}_{a}}} \\{{MaintenanceCycle}} & {{otherwise}}\end{matrix} \right.}} & ({CSP6}) \\{{\forall{a \in A}},{{t\; 1} \in {T(a)}},{\left. {{t\; 2} \in {T(a)}} \middle| {{Fly\_ B}{{\_ Check}\left\lbrack {a,{t\; 1},{t\; 2}} \right\rbrack}} \right. = 1}} & ({CSP7}) \\{{{Main\_ A}_{{ast}\; 1} = {1\mspace{14mu} {\forall{m \in {MA}}}}},{a \in A},{s \in S},{t \in {T\left( {\left. s \middle| {t\; 1} \right.,m} \right)}}} & ({CSP8}) \\{{{Main\_ B}_{{ast}\; 1} = {1\mspace{14mu} {\forall{m \in {MB}}}}},{a \in A},{s \in S},{t \in {T\left( {\left. s \middle| {t\; 1} \right.,m} \right)}}} & ({CSP9})\end{matrix}$

where:

Equation CSP1 is a flow balance constraint for each node in thetime-space network. Equation CSP2 restricts aircraft assignment based onminimum equipment list (MEL) violations (e.g., APU, ETOPS, TCAS) andoperating restrictions (e.g., range, noise rating, over water). Insolving the sub-problem, it may be desired to allow similar aircraft ofsimilar type, with similar crews, or in similar families to beinterchangeable, so Equations CSP3 to CSP5 restrict aircraft assignmentbased on the desired swapping criterion during the allocation process(within aircraft type, crew, or aircraft family). Equation CSP6 ensuresthat the flying time (sum of block times along a routing) assigned to agiven aircraft does not exceed the remaining time between scheduledmaintenance checks. Equation CSP7 ensures that the number of cycles onan aircraft does not exceed the limit between maintenance checks.Equation CSP8 ensures that all scheduled A maintenance checks occur.Equation CSP9 ensures that all scheduled B maintenance checks occur.Additional constraint equations to ensure other scheduled maintenancechecks occur may be added to the sub-problem.

TABLE 1 Variable Definition γ set of ground arcs γ_(ast) specifieswhether aircraft ‘a’ is at station ‘s’ at time ‘t’ γ_(ast−1) specifieswhether aircraft ‘a’ is at station ‘s’ at time ‘t − 1’ A set of aircraftac_type_(f) specifies the aircraft type required for a flight ‘f’ac_family_(f) specifies the aircraft family required for a flight ‘f’Aircln_(ast) 1 if aircraft ‘a’ is available at station ‘s’ at time ‘t’aircraftdual_(a) dual value of aircraft ‘a’ constraint in the restrictedmaster problem (MP1) described later AOC_(af) operating cost foraircraft ‘a’ assigned to flight ‘f’ apu_(a) specifies whether anaircraft ‘a’ has an operational APU unit apu_(f) specifies whether aflight ‘f’ (based on its departure or arrival airport/station) requiresAPU operations Assign_(af) 1 if aircraft ‘a’ is assigned to flight ‘f’,0 otherwise at arrival time for flight ‘f’ BlockTime_(f) scheduled blocktime for flight ‘f’ crewtype_(a) crew rating for a given aircraft ‘a’crewtype_(f) crew rating for a given flight ‘f’ CT_(a) current availabletime for a given aircraft ‘a’ dt departure time for a flight ‘f’etops_(a) specifies whether an aircraft ‘a’ is capable of ETOPSetops_(f) specifies whether a flight requires ETOPS operations F set offlights F(s) subset of flights at station ‘s’ F(s | in, t) subset offlights arriving at station ‘s’ at time ‘t’ F(s | out, t) subset offlights departing from station ‘s’ at time ‘t’ family_(a) aircraftfamily for aircraft ‘a’ flightdual_(f) dual value of flight ‘f’ coveringconstraint in the restricted master problem (MP2) described laterFly_A_Check[a, t1, t2] 1 if aircraft ‘a’ is available (out of A check)between time ‘t1’ and time ‘t2’, Fly_B_Check[a, t1, t2] 1 if aircraft‘a’ is available (out of B check) between time ‘t1’ and time ‘t2’FlyingCycles_(a) remaining number of cycles on aircraft ‘a’ before firstscheduled B maintenance check FlyingTime_(a) remaining flying time onaircraft ‘a’ before first scheduled A maintenance check H20_(a)specifies whether aircraft ‘a’ can fly over water (H20) H20_(f)specifies whether flight ‘f’ requires an aircraft with over watercapability MA set of scheduled maintenance A checks MA(s) set ofscheduled maintenance A checks at station ‘s’ MA(s | t = end) set ofscheduled maintenance A checks at station ‘s’ that end at time ‘t’ MA(s| t = start) set of scheduled maintenance A checks at station ‘s’ thatstart at time ‘t’ Main_A_(ast) 1 if there is a scheduled A maintenancefor aircraft ‘a’ at station ‘s’, time T, 0 otherwise Main_B_(ast) 1 ifthere is a scheduled B maintenance for aircraft ‘a’ at station ‘s’, timeT, 0 otherwise MaintenanceCycle maximum number of cycles between Bchecks MaintenanceInterval maximum flying time between A checks MB setof scheduled maintenance B checks MB(s) set of scheduled maintenance Bchecks at station ‘s’ MB(s | t = end) set of scheduled maintenance Bchecks at station ‘s’ that end at time ‘t’ MB(s | t = start) set ofscheduled maintenance B checks at station ‘s’ that start at time ‘t’noise_(a) noise rating for aircraft ‘a’ noise_(f) noise rating forflight ‘f’ range_(a) operating range for aircraft ‘a’ S set of stationsSL_(f) stage length for flight ‘f’ (distance in nautical miles)swap_within_crew 1 if assignment will be done within crew compatibleaircraft swap_within_family 1 if assignment will be done within aircraftfamily swap_within_type 1 if assignment will be done within a specificaircraft type T(a) set of time events for aircraft ‘a’ T(s) set of timeevents at station ‘s’ T(s | t, m) subset of times at station ‘s’ formaintenance event ‘m’ tcas_(a) specifies whether the TCAS equipment isworking on aircraft ‘a’ tcas_(f) specifies whether the TCAS equipment isrequired for flight ‘f’ type_(a) equipment type for aircraft ‘a’

The processor 106 may solve the sub-problem above using a shortest pathalgorithm, such as a generalized permanent labeling (GPL) algorithm.According to the GPL algorithm, the processor 106 assigns multiplelabels representing cost and time constraints to each node of thenetwork 300. “Labels” are constructs by which the GPL algorithm can keeptrack of and account for intermediate paths in the flight network 300 asthe algorithm attempts to find the shortest path under the sub-problemconstraints (Equations CSP1-CSP9). The processor 106 dynamically usesthese labels to calculate the labels of other nodes. The labels arecalculated to satisfy all side constraints on the problem, such as amaximum cumulative travel time on the aircraft routing or any of theother constraints in Equations CSP1 to CSP9. The processor 106 stores ateach node multiple labels of time and cost, until a less costly and/orless travel time flight-sequence that arrives at the given node isfound.

At any given node, a new label dominates an existing label if both itstime and cost parameters are better than the “best” label determined sofar. The processor 106 dynamically manages the set of labels stored ateach node in such a way that unnecessary or “dominated” labels aredeleted from a linked list at each node, and the label list is sorted indecreasing cost order. Each label corresponds to a different paththrough the network from the source to the given node, and is classifiedas being efficient. An efficient path is defined as one such that all ofits labels are efficient, and such paths are used to determine theconstrained shortest path from source (origin) to sink (destination) inthe network. The constrained shortest path of flights for each aircraftrepresents an aicraft routing proposal for the respective aircraft.

In determining the shortest path, the processor 106 may use otheralgorithms besides the generalized permanent labeling algorithm. Forexample the processor 106 may instead use LP-based shortest pathalgorithm, K-shortest path algorithm, Dijkstra algorithm, and/or anyother algorithm compatible with the present invention.

From the aircraft routing proposal, the processor 106 may determineproposed flight assignments (step 206). The proposed flight assignmentsrepresent the best attempt so far by the processor 106 in assigningaircraft to flights based on the received information from step 202 andconstraints of the flight assignment problem (restricted master problemdescribed below). More particularly, the processor 106 uses the receivedinformation to create proposed flight assignments for each aircraft,which may include a sequence of flights and/or ground arcs (i.e.,routes) satisfying operational and maintenance constraints. The proposedflight assignments are generated to meet a decision criteria, such asmaximizing net revenue and/or some other criteria.

In determining the proposed flight assignments (step 206), the processor106 may organize the aircraft routing proposal and any other requiredconstraints in the received information into a flight assignment problem(restricted master problem). For example, the aircraft routing proposaldetermined at step 204 is represented by the variable ASSIGN_(arf) forall flights ‘f’ covered by routing ‘r’ assigned to aircraft ‘a’. Theprocessor 106 organizes the values of ASSIGN_(arf) into the restrictedmaster problem by using them as coefficients in Equation MP2 of therestricted master problem.

A simplex method, revised simplex method, or any other method compatiblewith the invention may be used to determine the proposed flightassignments based on the aircraft routing proposal generated by thesub-problem. For example, the processor 106 may create the restrictedmaster problem comprising Equations OF1 and MP1-MP3 shown below, whereinthe variables are defined in Table 2. The objective function (EquationOF1) maximizes the net revenue across the entire fleet. Equation MP1ensures that the flow for each aircraft does not exceed one. EquationMP2 ensures that each scheduled flight is covered once across the entirefleet. Equation MP3 ensures that each aircraft is assigned to at mostone routing.

TABLE 2 (OF1)${{Maximize}{\sum\limits_{a \in A}\; {\sum\limits_{r \in {R{(a)}}}{{ANR}_{ar} \times {Route}_{ar}}}}}\mspace{11mu}$Subject to: (MP1)${{{Flow}\mspace{14mu} {\sum\limits_{r \in {R{(a)}}}\; {{FLOW}_{ar} \times {ROUTE}_{ar}}}} - {Excess}} = {1\mspace{14mu} {\forall{a \in A}}}$(MP2)${{{Flight}\mspace{14mu} {Cover}{\sum\limits_{a \in A}\; {\sum\limits_{r \in {R{(a)}}}\; {{ASSIGN}_{arf} \times {ROUTE}_{ar}}}}} + {Openflying}_{f}} = {1\mspace{14mu} {\forall{f \in F}}}$(MP3)${{{Convexity}\mspace{14mu} {\sum\limits_{r \in {R{(a)}}}{ROUTE}_{ar}}} = {1\mspace{14mu} {\forall{a \in A}}}}\mspace{20mu}$Variable Definition R(a) set of maintenance feasible routing foraircraft ‘a’ ANR_(ar) net revenue for assigning aircraft ‘a’ to routing‘r’ ASSIGN_(arf) 1 if flight ‘f’ is covered by routing ‘r’ that isassigned to aircraft ‘a’, 0 otherwise FLOW_(ar) 1 if routing ‘r’ is afeasible candidate for aircraft ‘a’ Route_(ar) 1 if aircraft ‘a’ isassigned to routing ‘r’, 0 otherwise Openflying_(f) 1 if flight ‘f’ isnot covered, 0 otherwise Excess slack variable

As one of ordinary skill in the art will appreciate, the processor 106may determine proposed flight assignments using a revised simplex methodas described on pp. 675-686 by Stephen P. Bradley, Amoldo C. Hax, andThomas L. Magnanti cited above, which is incorporated herein byreference in its entirety.

Returning to FIG. 2, if the proposed flight assignments do not meet adecision criteria (step 208), then the processor 106 may generateadditional aircraft routing proposals. The decision criteria in thepresent example may maximize net revenues when assigning aircraft toflights over an airline's entire flight schedule. The processor 106addresses this decision criteria in the objective function (EquationOF1) of the restricted master problem. As one of ordinary skill in theart will appreciate, when applying an algorithm, such as the revisedsimplex method, to solve the restricted master problem, the dualvariables of the model constraints are used to indicate whether theobjective function has been maximized. In this example, the objectivefunction expresses the total net revenue for assigning all the givenaircraft to the scheduled flights. In another example, other decisioncriteria, such as efficiency, gross revenue, etc., may be selected by auser for optimization instead.

The additional aircraft routing proposals may be generated by firstgenerating refinement information used by the sub-problems to determineadditional proposed routings for the aircraft (step 210). The refinementinformation may be dual variables found by the revised simplex procedureat step 206. From the dual variables, the processor 106 may update theunderlying structure of the sub-problem for each aircraft. For example,aircraftdual_(a) and flightdual_(f) in Equation SP1 are dual variablesused to adjust the costs on each corresponding flight arc in eachaircraft's flight network. The aircraftdual_(a) variable is determinedfrom the aircraft flow constraint (MP1) and aircraft convexityconstraint (MP3) in the restricted master problem. The flightdual_(f)variable is determined from the flight covering constraint (MP2) in therestricted master problem.

After generating the refinement information at step 210, the processor106 returns to step 204 to generate an additional aircraft routingproposal based on the generated refinement information. The processor106 may determine additional proposed routings for the aircraft back atstep 204 by solving the updated sub-problem using a generalizedpermanent labeling algorithm or any algorithm previously described. Theprocessor 106 uses the additional proposed aircraft routing to updatethe restricted master problem via column generation in Dantzig-Wolfedecomposition.

More particularly, during the column generation process, the dualvariables (i.e., multipliers) are used to price out the non-basicvariables (i.e., columns) by considering their reduced costs. The dualvariables ensure that the reduced cost for every variable in the basisis zero. If any reduced cost is of the wrong sign in the restrictedmaster problem, the process will introduce the corresponding non-basicvariable into the basis in place of one of the current basic variables,and recompute the simplex multipliers (i.e., dual variables). In orderto use column generation in the Dantzig-Wolfe method, the columns needto have structural characteristics which allow the pricing out ofoperations without explicitly considering every possible column in theproblem.

The revised simplex procedure attempts to check if all reduced cost ofvariables are non-negative for optimality, such that the followingequation is satisfied:

${{{Min}{\sum\limits_{f \in P}\left\{ {{AOC}_{af} - {flightdual}_{f}} \right\}}} \geq {aircraftdual}_{a}},$

wherein P is the set of flights forming the shortest-path flightsequence. The left hand side of this expression is the length of theconstrained shortest path connecting the source and sink nodes ofaircraft a with respect to the modified costs (AOC_(af)-flightdual_(f)).If for all aircraft a, the length of the constrained shortest path forthat commodity is at least as large as its corresponding dual variableaircraftdual_(a), the procedure will satisfy the complementary slacknessconditions, and the solution will be optimal. Otherwise, based on theconstrained shortest path on the updated network, the reduced cost ofthe column (i.e., path) is less than the length aircraftdual_(a) for agiven aircraft a. By inserting this column into the basis to create anupdated master problem, there will be an improvement to the objectivefunction (Equation OF1) of the restricted master problem.

Using the updated master problem, the processor 106 determines revisedflight assignments (step 206). If the processor 106 determines at step208 that the revised flight assignments do not meet the decisioncriteria, then the processor 106 repeats steps 204 to 210 until itdetermines a flight assignment proposal and corresponding aircraftrouting proposal that meets the decision criteria. Once the decisioncriteria is met, no more additional proposed routings for the aircraftunder operational and maintenance constraints may be determined and viceversa.

The processor 106 determines a flight assignment plan from the finalflight assignment proposal that meets the decision criteria (step 212).Since the Dantzig-Wolfe decomposition and revised simplex method operatewith real numbers, the final flight assignment proposal may containfractional numbers that are not applicable to the real world. Forexample, the flight assignment process may propose assigning one-half ofan aircraft to a route because the mathematics of the problem dictatesthis meets the decision criteria. However, half an aircraft can not beassigned in the real world. Therefore, at step 212, the processor 106uses the final flight assignment proposal to solve the master problem tointegrality (i.e., solve the master problem such that only wholeaircraft are assigned to routes), of which the solution contains theflight assignment plan. As one of ordinary skill in the art willappreciate, this may be done using the branch and bound method describedon pp. 387-395 by Stephen P. Bradley, Amoldo C. Hax, and Thomas L.Magnanti cited above and is incorporated herein by reference in itsentirety.

Once the processor 106 generates the flight assignment plan, it maystore the plan in the flight assignment plan database 110. The plan maybe accessed by others, such as the flight information display system112. All operational departments within the airline will have access tothe schedule plan via the flight information display system 112, inorder to make resource management decisions such as gate assignment, andman-power staffing.

If for any reason the flight assignment plan needs to be modified, theinformation (flight, aircraft, maintenance, passenger, etc.) containedin the flight management/operations computer 102 may be modified and anew flight assignment plan may be generated as described above.

With regard to the aircraft routing system 100, it is understood thatone of ordinary skill in the art may implement features and principlesof the present invention with alternative systems. Alternative systemsmay comprise one or more processors for implementing the exemplarymethod illustrated in the flowchart 200 of FIG. 2.

Further, in receiving flight information as part of processing step 202,the functions of the alternative systems may include accessing/obtainingdata from a database, data structure, storage medium, survey, and/or anyother mechanism or combination of mechanisms. The received data may beraw data, such as data entries from a database, preprocessed data, suchas encoded raw data, or any other form of data. “Receiving” data mayinclude at least one of acquisition via a network, via verbalcommunication, via electronic transmission, via telephone transmission,in hard-copy form, or through any other mechanism enabling reception. Inaddition, “receiving” may occur either directly or indirectly. Forexample, receipt may occur through a third party acting on anotherparty's behalf, as an agent of another, or in concert with another.Regardless, all such indirect and direct actions are intended to becovered by the term “receiving” as used herein.

Received data may take one of many exemplary forms. It may simply be achecked box, clicked button, submitted form, or oral affirmation. Or itmight be typed or handwritten textual data. Receiving may occur throughan on-line form, e-mail, facsimile, telephone, interactive voiceresponse system, or file transfer protocol transmitted electronicallyover a network at a web site, an internet protocol address, or a networkaccount. Receipt may occur physically such as in hard copy form, viamail delivery, or other courier delivery. “Receiving” may involvereceipt directly or indirectly through one or more networks and/orstorage media previously described.

In another embodiment, features and principles of the present inventionmay be implemented in the exemplary flowchart 400 for routing aircraftillustrated in FIG. 4. As shown in FIG. 4, processor 106 may initializeparameters for a tree-searching algorithm (step 402). The processor 106may receive flight, aircraft, maintenance, and/or passenger data fromthe flight management/operations system 102 at step 404. The processor106 may further create specialized flight networks for each aircraft atstep 406 using the received data. The processor 106 may also set up arestricted master problem at step 406. The processor 106 may solve theinitial restricted master problem to determine multipliers (i.e., dualvariables) using the revised simplex method.

Based on the initial solution, the processor 106 may generate a flightsequence for each aircraft fleet from the flight network using atree-searching algorithm at step 408. Subsequently, the processor 106may determine whether eligible columns exist for addition to the masterproblem at step 410 . If eliglible columns exist, the processor 106 maydetermine the column corresponding to each variable in the restrictedmaster problem for the flight sequence and may add the column to therestricted master problem (step 412). Using the revised simplex method,the processor 106 may determine aircraft-flight sequence assignmentsthat will meet a decision criterion by solving the restricted masterproblem (step 414). The processor 106 may use dual variables found inthe revised simplex method to adjust the costs on each correspondingflight arc of the flight network at step 416. The processor 106 maygenerate the columns until no more eligible columns exist for additionto the restricted master problem. At this point, the processor may solvethe restricted master problem to yield an optimal solution foraircraft-flight sequence assignments (step 418). The processor 106 mayuse the final solution as the root of a branch and bound method to solvefor an integral aircraft-flight sequence assignment plan at step 420.

In the foregoing description, it should be apparent to ones of ordinaryskill in the art that features and principles of the present inventionmay generate an flight assignment plan that can retain all scheduleddeparture times, swap aircraft within a given sub-fleet for a givenflight, consider tail specific constraints, consider variable ranges foroperating constraints in order to find feasible solutions, considerstrategic flights assigned to a specific tail, incorporate allpre-assigned maintenance events, consider the number of bookedpassengers, and preserve pre-assigned through flights. Further it shouldbe apparent, that the present invention has the capability to handle theferrying of aircraft between airport stations, swap aircraft within thesame equipment type and different seating capacity, swap aircraft acrossequipment types that share common crew ratings (adaptive aircraftassignment), and assign different aircraft types to flights such thethere is no passenger spill (real-time fleet assignment). Thesesituations would be handled by modifying the underlying sub-problem orrestricted master problem to include these capabilities. In each case,the present invention might be biased to maintain existing assignmentsbetween aircraft type and flights and would consider diverging from thisonly if it is beneficial to the overall solution process.

Also in the foregoing description, various features are grouped togetherin various embodiments for purposes of streamlining the disclosure. Thismethod of disclosure is not to be interpreted as reflecting an intentionthat the claimed invention requires more features than are expresslyrecited in each claim. Rather, as the following claims reflect,inventive aspects may lie in less than all features of a singleforegoing disclosed embodiment. Thus, the following claims are herebyincorporated into this description, with each claim standing on its ownas a separate embodiment of the invention.

1-41. (canceled)
 42. A mobile vehicle routing method comprising:generating a vehicle routing proposal based on information describing apossible arc of a vehicle; determining a proposed pre-arc assignment forthe vehicle based on the generated vehicle routing proposal andcomplying with the information describing the possible arc of thevehicle and a plurality of operational and maintenance constraints;determining whether the proposed arc assignment meets a decisioncriterion describing requirements for vehicle routing; if the decisioncriterion is unmet, optimizing the proposed arc assignment to meet thedecision criterion; and generating an arc assignment plan using theproposed arc assignment that meets the decision criterion.
 43. Themethod of claim 42, wherein optimizing the proposed arc assignmentcomprises: generating refinement information; generating an additionalarc routing proposal based on the refinement information; determining arevised arc assignment for the vehicle based on the generated arcrouting proposal and complying with the information describing thepossible arc of the vehicle; and determining whether the revised arcassignment meets the decision criterion.
 44. The method of claim 43,wherein the proposed arc assignment is generated using a revised simplexalgorithm and wherein the refinement information is generated from dualvariables found in the revised simplex algorithm.
 45. The method ofclaim 43, wherein the decision criterion is met when no more additionalvehicle routing proposals can be determined based on the generatedrefinement information and complying with the information describing thepossible arc of the vehicle.
 46. The method of claim 42, wherein theinformation describing the possible arc of the vehicle includes at leastone of arc information, vehicle information, and maintenanceinformation.
 47. The method of claim 46, wherein the arc informationincludes at least one of origin, destination, start time, end time,block time, booked passenger loads, passenger revenue/fare, assignedvehicle family type, assigned crew rating, and minimum equipment listrestriction.
 48. The method of claim 46, wherein the vehicle informationincludes at least one of vehicle identification, hourly operating cost,current location, ready time, remaining arc time, passenger capacity,family type, crew rating, and minimum equipment list capability.
 49. Themethod of claim 46, wherein the maintenance information includes atleast one of vehicle identification, type of check, scheduled location,start time, and end time.
 50. The method of claim 42, wherein theinformation describing the possible arc of the vehicle is organized intoan arc network for the vehicle and the vehicle routing proposal isgenerated using the arc network.
 51. The method of claim 50, wherein thevehicle routing proposal is generated using a shortest path algorithm.52. The method of claim 51, wherein the shortest path algorithm is ageneralized permanent labeling algorithm.
 53. The method of claim 51,wherein the shortest path algorithm is at least one of a generalizedpermanent labeling algorithm, a LP-based shortest path algorithm, aK-shortest path algorithm, and a Dijkstra algorithm.
 54. The method ofclaim 42, wherein the proposed arc assignment is generated using arevised simplex algorithm.
 55. The method of claim 42, wherein the arcassignment plan is generated using a branch and bound method.
 56. An arcflight assignment system to be used in a computer system comprising: aprocessor configured for: generating a vehicle routing proposal based oninformation describing a possible arc of a vehicle; determining aproposed pre-arc assignment for the vehicle based on the generatedvehicle routing proposal and complying with the information describingthe possible arc of the vehicle and a plurality of operational andmaintenance constraints; determining whether the proposed arc assignmentmeets a decision criterion describing requirements for vehicle routing;if the decision criterion is unmet, optimizing the proposed arcassignment to meet the decision criterion; and generating an arcassignment plan using the proposed arc assignment that meets thedecision criterion.
 57. The system of claim 56, wherein the processor isfurther configured for: generating refinement information; generating anadditional arc routing proposal based on the refinement information;determining a revised arc assignment for the vehicle based on thegenerated arc routing proposal and complying with the informationdescribing the possible arc of the vehicle; and determining whether therevised arc assignment meets the decision criterion.
 58. The system ofclaim 57 wherein the decision criterion is met when no more additionalvehicle routing proposals can be determined based on the generatedrefinement information and complying with the information describing thepossible arc of the vehicle.
 59. The system of claim 56, wherein theinformation describing the possible arc of the vehicle is organized intoan arc network for the vehicle and the vehicle routing proposal isgenerated using the arc network.